jo ann cavallo and carlo lottieri introduction: speaking ... · jo ann cavallo and carlo lottieri...
TRANSCRIPT
Annali d’italianistica 34 (2016). Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy
Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power
from Medieval to Modern Italy
“Non resta che perdere a chi ha perduto la libertà.”
(Once you have lost liberty, there remains nothing else to lose.)
Arcangela Tarabotti, Inferno monacale (translated as Paternal Tyranny)
Centuries before Lord Acton coined his famous phrase that “Power tends to
corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the humanist scholar Poggio
Bracciolini argued in his De infelicitate principum (1440) that one of the four
reasons for the general unhappiness of princes is precisely corruption — not as
part of human nature, but as a particular vice of rulers (“Neque tantum hoc
natura hominum, quantum ipsius evenit vitio principatus” 18).1 Later in the
century the humanist poet Matteo Maria Boiardo would open his Orlando
Innamorato with the reflection that those in power have the tendency to crave
what they cannot have, often putting their realms in danger in a vain attempt to
secure something beyond their reach:
E sì como egli advien a’ gran signori
Che pur quel voglion che non pòno avere,
E quanto son difficultà magiori
La disiata cosa ad otenere,
Pongono il regno spesso in grandi erori,
Né posson quel che voglion possedere.
(1.1.5)
(And as it happens to great lords
who only want what they can’t have,
the greater obstacles there are
to reaching what they would obtain
the more they jeopardize their realms,
and what they want, they cannot gain.)
The humanist chancellor of Florence Coluccio Salutati legitimitized every
1 According to Bracciolini princes are also unhappy because of their little interest in
culture, their tendency to surround themselves with flatterers rather than men of real
intellect, and their lack of virtue. See Loscalzo for a reading of this text as “una polemica
di vasti contorni sul disinteresse del potere nei confronti della letteratura e sul rifiuto di
ogni compromesso con la politica da parte dell’intellettuale” (388).
18 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
form of resistance, including tyrannicide, as a response against a ruler whose
excessive ambitions had led him to disregard justice and the laws (De tyranno).2
Indeed, the protagonists of Italian Renaissance humanism all underscored, albeit
with different emphases, the immorality of power that some men exerted over
others and, consequently, the need for an opposition capable of manifesting
itself through words, ideas, and testimony.
Yet not all humanists belonged to what Eugenio Garin referred to as the
movement’s “età eroica in cui la riconquista dell’antico era stata una bella
avventura, un’impresa eroica e solitaria da cavalieri erranti, senza maestri che
non fossero i libri medesimi”(10). On the contrary, humanists dependent upon
ruling elites, whether elective or hereditary regimes, often found themselves
obliged to unconditionally support and celebrate their patrons through their
writing. Lauro Martines describes these establishment intellectuals as
propagandists of the state, rewarded with financial gain and social prestige for
manufacturing consent among the populace rather than pursuing truth.3
The poet Lodovico Ariosto had so little faith in the integrity of his fellow
writers serving patrons that in the Orlando furioso he has San Giovanni explain
to the knight Astolfo that to arrive at the truth it would be necessary to convert
every written statement into its exact opposite: “E se tu vuoi che ’l ver non ti sia
ascoso, tutta al contrario l’istoria converti” (“But if you want to know what
really happened, invert the story” 35.27). In Il libro del cortegiano, Ariosto’s
contemporary Baldassare Castiglione elaborately crafts three evenings of
dialogue before broaching the subject of how a courtier might gain the prince’s
confidence sufficiently to tell him “la verità d’ogni cosa che ad esso convenga
sapere, senza timor o periculo di despiacergli” (“the truth about everything he
needs to know without fear or risk of displeasing him” 4.5). Even so, the speaker
Ottaviano Fregoso comments: “S’io avessi la grazia di qualche principe ch’io
conosco e gli dicessi liberamente il parer mio, dubito che presto la perderei” (“If
I had the favor of some of the princes I know, and if I were to tell them freely
what I think, I fear I should soon lose that favor” 4.26).
After all, considerations of the political-institutional sphere of society have
always shown how every political power structure is based not only on force,
but also on ideological mechanisms designed to confer legitimacy upon the use
and threat of such violence. The close tie between the power elite and
intellectuals at their service has its justification in the necessity for all rulers to
provide themselves with instruments to manipulate public opinion. Herein lies
the difficulty — across a range of contexts — for individuals to freely voice
2 Sozzi sees Salutati’s treatise as a forerunner of Estienne de la Boétie’s De la servitude
volontaire, the quintessential Renaissance treatise on the population’s right to refuse to
obey an unjust sovereign (17). 3 His more cynical view of the humanists’ affiliation with power can be found in the
chapter “Humanism: A Program for Ruling Classes” (191-217).
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 19
their thoughts with regard to those in power, especially if their intention is
correctional or contestatory.
It is understandable that openly censuring the political class should be
deemed a virtually impossible undertaking when any critique could mean the
loss not only of one’s livelihood, but of one’s very life as well. Massimo
Rospocher, for example, documents how during the Renaissance perceived
verbal or written affronts to the Venetian state by its residents, even statements
pronounced outside the borders of its territory, could come under the juridical
category of crimen lesae maiestatis and result in fines, imprisonment,
banishment, or even more extreme physical punishments, such as the cutting out
of the offender’s tongue (354-55).4 As readers of Ovid’s Metamorphoses are
shown through the example of the Thracian king Tereus cutting out his sister-in-
law Philomela’s tongue to prevent her from disclosing his violent rape, this
particular form of punishment would additionally aim to prevent further verbal
pronouncements by silencing the speaker forever.
Although the penalty is not so gruesome, today one still risks punishment
for even verbal offenses to Italy’s head of state through the so-called “legge
contro il vilipendio.” Alan Perry’s essay in this volume dealing with Giovannino
Guareschi’s trial and imprisonment shows that this law, codified under
Mussolini, could be applied in the post-war republic even when a citizen aimed
not to gratuitiously offend, but to arrive at the truth concerning the possibly
illicit activities of a powerful political figure.
Given the difficulty and danger of critiquing those in power across time
periods — as well as the advantages to be accrued from actively promoting and
supporting their rule — we might not expect to find many willing to openly
speak their mind. Nevertheless, history is full of examples, some famous but
countless others little-known or still untold, of individuals who have voiced
dissent or exposed the misdeeds of the powerful by means of speech, song,
performance, art and writing, both directly and through fictional characters. One
may recall that even deprived of her tongue a determined Philomela was able to
narrate the tale of Tereus’s vile act.
Perhaps an even more archetypical representation of the act of speaking
truth to power involves another Ovidian character who, like Philomela,
communicated through images: Ovid’s Arachne used the art of weaving to
disclose the abuses of the gods in a contest against Minerva, the goddess of
needlework, wisdom, and warfare. In Giovanni Andrea dell’Anguillara’s
sixteenth-century Italian verse translation of the Metamorphoses, the contest
between the all-powerful goddess and the defiant female weaver is staged in the
4 Noting that Venice was not unique in this regard, Rospocher provides examples of
punishments for dissident voices in other Italian states, not only hanging, beating,
whipping, or chaining the perceived offender, but also piercing his (or her) tongue with a
nail or impaling it with a poker (355).
20 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
epic form of the ottava rima. Whereas Minerva’s depiction of Jove reinforces
his unmovable position as king of the gods — “Giove nel mezzo imperioso
siede, / Gli altri sedono bassi, egli eminente” (“Imperious Jove sits in the middle
/ The others are seated low, he (is) elevated” 84 verso) — Arachne (Aranne)
strives to reveal his abuses against humankind and in particular against young
females: “E con queste lascivie, e questi inganni / Nota i pensier di Giove empi,
e tiranni” (“And through these lustful acts and deceptions / She denotes the
impious and tyrannical thoughts of Giove” 85 verso).5 Despite the excellence of
Arachne’s tapestry, the angry goddess rips her artwork to shreds and then takes
vengeance upon her body by striking her face and chest (see cover image). The
translation makes clear that Minerva’s violent reaction is not due to Arachne’s
immoderate pride in her art, but rather to her censorious depiction of the gods:
Quanto lodò la Dea d’Aranne l’arte,
Tanto dannò la sua profana Historia,
Che senza offender la celeste parte,
Ben acquistar potea la stessa gloria.
Tutto straccia quel panno à parte, à parte,
De celesti peccati empia memoria,
Per non mostrare à secoli novelli
Gli eccessi de gli zii, padre, e fratelli.
(86 verso)6
(As much as the goddess praised Arachne’s art,
That much she condemned the profane history,
Since without offending the celestial lot,
She could have acquired the same glory. She rips up that cloth piece by piece,
The impious record of celestial sins,
In order not to show to future generations
The excesses of her uncles, father, and brothers.)
Dell’Anguillara’s translation first appeared in 1561, two years before the
conclusion of the Council of Trent, whose decrees led to a period of censureship
in the Italian peninsula that made the previous centuries appear quite mild by
comparison.7
Although the expression “speaking truth to power” is frequently linked to
the American Quakers who used it in the title of their 1955 booklet on
5 Nor does Arachne keep silent about the abuses on the part of other gods, namely Pluto,
Neptune, and Apollo. 6 In Ovid’s original, moreover, gods and rulers are connected, for example, through the
deification of Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus (the ruler who later exiled him to
Thrace on the Black Sea, where he died). The political implications of an original work
by Giovanni Andrea dell’Anguillara, his tragedy Edippo, are discussed in the present
volume by Sandra Clerc. 7 For the history of censorship in Italy following the Council of Trent, see Frajese.
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 21
international conflict and approaches to peacemaking, the paradigm itself is
timeless.8 Given that the question of speaking truth to power is not limited to
either a specific historical period or particular form of government, the guest
editors invited scholars to submit essays exploring instances in which literary
characters and historical figures ranging from the medieval to the modern period
articulated personal, political, economic, or religious freedoms or otherwise
challenged the established power of the state. We welcomed attention to all
levels of political power, from centralized to local, including the political power
of the Church to the extent that it could take preventive or punitive action
against individuals even outside the Papal States. While the papacy could — and
often did — play a role in countering and limiting the power of contending
sovereigns within territories of mutual influence,9 in many instances the Church
was also intertwined with secular politics for a variety of reasons, including the
fact that for centuries government representatives were involved in the offices
and tribunals of the curia, which itself was often comprised of family members
from the ranks of the ruling elite.
Before we move to an overview of the individual essays, it may be useful to
further explain the theoretical position underpinning the guest editors’
conception of the volume. Simply put, our goal has been to offer essays that
shed new light or offer a fresh perspective on a range of individual and group
efforts to stand up to power. Power, however, comes in different forms and the
term has been used with different meanings. Many authors have grouped
together under the same umbrella political power (which compels compliance
through the use or threat of physical force), cultural power (activated through
the spread of certain ideas), and economic power (which coincides with the
possession and use of resources). Against this all-inclusive definition of power,
we maintain that culture and wealth do not represent, in themselves, instruments
of violence, and therefore can only be appropriately subsumed into the general
category when they are in collusion with and backed by the power of the state.
For this reason we have chosen to focus critical attention specifically on
opposition to political power — for us, the distinctively agressive form of power
— because the state, regardless of the structure it assumes, is the only entity that
claims a legal monopoly on the use of violence within a given territory and
thereby compels compliance through physical aggression.
The conception of state power outlined above is shared by the Austrian
School of economics and by libertarian philosophy. Although the Austrian
School has roots dating back to the sixteenth-century School of Salamanca and
8 The booklet, whose full title is Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an
Alternative to Violence, critiques the United States’ aggressive military policy during the
Cold War, contending that “military power in today’s world is incompatible with
freedom, incapable of providing security, and ineffective in dealing with evil” (online). 9 For historical examples, see Lottieri, Credere nello Stato?
22 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
even before, its core ideas were advanced by economists working in the
nineteenth-century Austro-Hungarian Empire and further developed by
twentieth-century Austrian economists. The commonly recognized founder of
the Austrian School is Carl Menger (1840-1921), to whom are owed the theory
of subjective value (based on the radical irreducibility of personal preference)
and a groundbreaking reflection on the spontaneous origin and evolutionary
development of human practices such as the use of money, language, and law.
Menger, moreover, provided a crucial contribution to the elaboration of
methodological individualism, a mode of reasoning that underscores the choices
and actions of single individuals and thereby refuses to imagine collective
entities (nations, classes, states, etc.) capable of acting subjectively and
expressing a will.
In the course of the twentieth century both Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)
and Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) drew on Menger’s insights to develop a
critical position toward state intervention and central planning in economic
matters, starting from the centrality of individual human action and underlining
the fact that, given the dispersed and limited nature of knowledge and expertise,
no political authority could possibly substitute for the free play of social
interaction. One of Mises’s students, Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), further
elaborated these theses in an original way by bringing libertarian philosophy —
with its system of ethics based on the principle of non-aggression — to bear on
the economic theories of the Austrian School.10 Rothbard, moreover, connected
the subjectivity of individual preference, which is at the heart of the free market,
and the objectivity of natural law, which prohibits the acceptance of power
exerted over others by force or threat of violence. An important contribution in
this latter area of thought comes to us from an Italian author, Bruno Leoni
(1913-1967), whose writings articulate how rules that permit social life to
operate are the product of social negotiation (the exchange of claims). This
perspective gives rise to a focus on alternatives to legislation in the formation of
laws, from Roman law (elaborated by jurisconsultants) to common law (which
emerges from judgments ruled in the courts).
From the beginning and throughout its development, the Austrian School
has confronted Marxism, criticizing the reductionism of a line of thought that
ignores the fundamental character of political power, always a superstructure in
the interactions among classes. One of the consequences of this perspective in
Marx, as well as in those influenced by him in various ways, is the
condemnation of “capitalist acts between consenting adults” (to use Robert
10 Rothbard’s libertarianism draws largely from classical liberal philosophers such as
John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), who linked their conception
of liberty to a strong defense of private property rights, and from the nineteenth-century
individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) and Benjamin Tucker (1854-
1939).
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 23
Nozick’s phrase), without an understanding of the authoritatian, oppressive, and
definitive character of force monopolitized by a small group. While the Austrian
School shares with Marxism a conception of power as exploitative, it makes an
essential distinction between power held and enforced by the state or other
coercive institutions (bands of brigands, mafias, terroristic groups, etc.) and
other uses of the term. In “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis,” Hans-
Hermann Hoppe faults Marxism for “muddling things up” with its “fallacious
model of the wage earner versus the capitalist” when in fact the real distinction
is between those who acquire and increase their wealth by homesteading,
producing, saving and contracting, and those who exploit the homesteaders,
producers, savers, and contractors through non-productive and non-contractual
acquisitions (84).11
The focus on power elite analysis rather than class analysis invites
researchers to recognize and investigate the form and effect of political power
structures at work in any time period and at any point on the globe. Some of the
proponents of this approach have occasionally delved into the interpretation of
literature and other forms of cultural expression — for example, J. A. Nock’s
Francis Rabelais the Man and his Work (1929), Henry Hazlitt’s The Anatomy of
Criticism (1933), and Murray Rothbard’s film reviews 12 — but it is only
recently that scholars in the humanities have begun to ground their critical work
directly in the Austrian School and libertarian philosophy. Paul Cantor’s
pioneering research in this interdisciplinary method has ranged from major
English authors the likes of Shakespeare and Shelley to popular American
television series such as Gilligan’s Island and South Park. In the volume
Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture (2009),
Cantor and his coeditor Stephen Cox present what they believe to be “the first
collection of essays that accepts the idea that economics is relevant to the study
of literature, but offers free market principles, rather than Marxist, as the means
of relating the two fields” (x), with contributions on canonical European and
American authors (including Cervantes, Jonson, Shelley, Whitman, H. G. Wells,
and Cather) as well as the contemporary Nigerian novelist Ben Okri. Noting that
“Marxist literary theory has only deepened what was originally an aristocratic
contempt for and distrust of market principles and practices” (ix), the coeditors
11 For further discussions of the economic principles of the Austrian School in relation to
Marxism, see especially Osterfeld and Raico. Although Marxism has been largely
discredited as economic theory and practice, Marxist criticism nevertheless remains
widely known and used in academic literary criticism. See Dario Fernández-Morera’s
American Academia and the Survival of Marxist Ideas (1996) for an account of its origins
and stronghold in academic literary and cultural studies. 12 A selection of the latter, including pieces on The Godfather and Cinema Paradiso,
have recently been collected in the section “Movie Reviews” in The Rothbard Reader
(293-303). These and many other reviews can be found dispersed throughout The
Complete Libertarian Forum 1969-1984 under the rubric “Mr First Nighter.”
24 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
argue that Austrian economics, “which focuses on the freedom of the individual
actor and the subjectivity of values, is more suited to the study of literature and
artistic creativity than a materialist, determinist, and collectivist doctrine such as
Marxism” (12).
Austro-libertarian literary criticism has recently yielded new insights in a
range of areas, from ancient Chinese moral philosophy (Long 2003) to
American cowboy movies (McMaken 2012).13 Allen Mendenhall’s Literature
and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism (2014), which likewise
argues from a theoretical standpoint for the privileging of methodological
individualism over collectivism in the interpretation of texts, focuses on authors
as diverse as Geoffrey of Monmouth, Shakespeare, Emerson, Mark Twain, and
E. M. Forster. The current volume’s guest coeditors have also contributed to this
interdisciplinary approach, albeit from different starting points. Carlo Lottieri is
a political philosopher of libertarian orientation, who is interested in the
historical and ideological roots of contemporary institutions.14 Jo Ann Cavallo is
an Italianist who has looked increasingly to Austrian economics and libertarian
philosophy in her interpretation of literary and historical texts.15
Readers need not be versed in Austro-libertarian theory, however, in order
to appreciate the essays that follow. Indeed, although the contributions to this
volume accord well with the Austro-libertarian framework briefly sketched
above, most do not refer explicitly to this methology. Some of the contributors
have drawn from a range of contemporary theoreticians of power, such as
Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, and Judith Butler.16 Others look to cultural
anthropology, posthumanism, feminism, and Bakuninian anarchism. Still others
eschew theory and base their arguments on a close analysis of the literary text in
conjunction with careful attention to the historical context. The guest coeditors
were gratified by the fact that a Call for Papers so expressly focused in a radical
critique of political power drew the interest of scholars grounded in a variety of
13 More generally, see Journal of Libertarian Studies (1977-2008) and Libertarian
Papers (2009-). 14 His endeavor to rethink “modernity” is most evident in Denaro e comunità, Credere
nello Stato? and Un’idea elvetica di libertà. 15 This approach is used implicitly in The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto, and Tasso:
From Public Duty to Private Pleasure, The World beyond Europe in the Romance Epics
of Boiardo and Ariosto, and “Purgatory 17: On Revenge,” and expressly in “On Political
Power and Personal Liberty in The Prince and The Discourses” and “Marco Polo on the
Mongol State: Taxation, Predation, and Monopolization.” 16 We might add that there are nonetheless some convergences between the first two of
these critics and the Austrian School. Citing James Miller’s biography on Foucault,
Cantor notes that Foucault’s opening lecture at the Collège de France for 1970
encouraged students to read precisely Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek (“The
Poetics of Spontaneous Order” 11). David Gordon points out that Arendt “owned a large
number of books by Mises, even more by Hayek, and two by Rothbard” (“Arendt and the
Austrians”).
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 25
different traditions and methodologies.
Although a volume of this nature cannot aim to be comprehensive, the
essays focus on distinct moments across a history of lived experience and
fictional literature that stretches from Dante Alighieri to Elsa Morante. In some
instances, contributors have revisited the writings of very well-known figures,
while in other cases they have shed light on lesser-known writers as well as
anonymous pronouncements such as the Pasquinades, private testimonials such
as the personal letters of World War I soldiers, and choral voices such as the
protest songs of female rice-workers, the mondine.
The volume opens with essays on the three Florentine crowns. Zane Mackin
argues for the political relevance of Dante’s varied and complex uses of
preaching in the Commedia and elsewhere, exploring in particular the conditions
that motivated Dante to assume the preacher’s voice and his justifications of his
right to preach despite ecclesiastical proclamations prohibiting laypersons from
engaging in the practice (“Dante, the Rhetoric of Crisis, and Vigilante
Preaching”).
Steve Baker goes against the stereotypical portrait of Petrarch as a forlorn
unrequited lover or a solitary figure writing letters to ancient figures of antiquity
or to posterity in order to examine his involvement in the messy business of
trying to improve the political reality of his day, in particular, his active support
for the popular leader Cola di Rienzo in his insurrection against the aristocratic
rulers of Rome (“Writing the Revolution: Petrarch and the Tribunate of Cola di
Rienzo”).
Boccaccio’s Decameron, dubbed a “merchant epic” by Vittore Branca for
its vast fresco of human interactions in the marketplace, also includes its share
of characters who speak truth to power. Madonna Filippa, for example, in a
court trial in which she faces a death sentence for adultery, wittily defends
herself by refuting the legitimacy of a law made without her consent,
proclaiming self-ownership of her body and evoking free market principles
(Decameron 6.7). She thereby not only successfully regains her freedom but
also succeeds in overturning an unjust law. Karina Attar focuses on another
Decameron wife who is accused by her husband of adultery — this time
wrongly so, despite the literary connotations of her name, Ginevra — and who is
eventually able to disclose the truth through her entrepreneurial ingenuity
(“Speaking Truth to Powerful Friends and Foes: Genoese Merchants and the
Mamluks in Decameron 2.9”).
One of the fundamental commonalities in speaking out against the power
elite regardless of time period and geographical location is the sheer difficulty of
the enterprise. Coming through in various essays included in the volume, this
theme is at the center of Alessandra Mantovani’s discussion of Giovanni
Garzoni’s Speculum veritatis, a work that aims to balance discretion with honest
advice (“Speculum veritatis: Giovanni Garzoni e la tradizione dell’institutio
principis nella Bologna dei Bentivoglio”).
26 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
Matteo Bosisio draws our attention to Antonio Cammelli, another fifteenth-
century humanist, whose tragedy Panfila lays bare the dark side of courtly
politics (“Fuggendo da lui fuggo la morte”: libertà, vendetta, polemica anti-
cortigiana nella Panfila di Antonio Cammelli). Based on Boccaccio’s novella of
Ghismonda speaking truth to her father, Prince Tancredi of Salerno (Decameron
4.1), Panfila further develops the themes of corruption, injustice, betrayal, and
oppression through both the plot and inserted invectives that echo Cammelli’s
own poetic output.
Jo Ann Cavallo maintains that the opening novella of Giovanni Sabadino
degli Arienti’s Porretane not only harbors a thinly veiled critique of the military
adventurism and rhetorical manipulation of those wielding political power,
namely, the pope and the emperor, but also subtly pits the free movement
inherent in a market economy against the coercive violence of the political state
(“Contracts, Surveillance, and Censure of State Power in Arienti’s Triunfo da
Camarino novella [Le porretane 1.1]”).
Laurie Shepard examines the development of Pietro Aretino’s vituperative
writings over the course of two decades, exploring the Venetian context of his
increasingly agressive assertions of his right to act as the scourge of princes. She
also situates his satirical works in relation to the genre of pasquinades, witty
sayings and poems lampooning mostly prominent figures in the Roman Curia
that since the early sixteenth century were customarily displayed on a certain
particular in Rome (“Petrus Aretinus acerrimus virtutum ac vitiorum
demonstrator”).
Linda L. Carroll places into historical context the literary and theatrical
career of Angelo Beolco, usually referred to by the name of the peasant
character Ruzante that he created and played on the stage, in order to help
account for both his extraordinary outspokenness and the (temporary) patrician
acceptance of his biting critiques (“Ruzante Speaks Truth to Venetian Power:
Some Hows, Whys, Whens, and Wherefores”). Her essay includes close
analyses that highlight his serious concern for the rights of peasants on the
mainland and his various comedic strategies.
Diletta Gamberini takes into consideration Benvenuto Cellini’s literary
works, in particular his autobiography and Trattati dell’Oreficeria e della
Scultura. Her analysis demonstrates that even though Cellini is known for his
boisterous outspoken character, he was compelled to revise and temper his
words against Cosimo de’ Medici in a process of self-censorship in order for the
latter work to see the light during his lifetime (“Benvenuto Cellini e il problema
di sapere ‘pur troppo dire il fatto suo’ a Cosimo de’ Medici”). Her essay also
devotes attention to contentious legal petitions that Cellini addressed to the
Florentine magistrate — and thus indirectly to Cosimo — shortly before his
death.
Noting that in the course of the sixteenth century the genre of tragedy
became a privileged space in which to shine a critical spotlight on political
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 27
power, Sandra Clerc analyzes the figure of the ruler in four tragedies published
between 1550 and 1565: Alessandro Spinelli’s Cleopatra, Lodovico Dolce’s
Ifigenia and Marianna, and Giovan Andrea dell’Anguillara’s Edippo (“Verità e
potere, ubbidienza e menzogna nella tragedia italiana del Cinquecento [1550-
1565]”). She finds that while all four tragedies present variations on the theme
of speaking truth to a tyrant, it is generally the female protagonist, when present,
who most openly challenges an unjust ruler.
Laura Benedetti focuses on Torquato Tasso’s epistolary regarding his
Gerusalemme liberata prior to its publication, chiefly his lengthy letter to Silvio
Antoniano of the Roman Curia, highlighting his mode of reasoning and some of
his rhetorical strategies (“Le ragioni della poesia: Torquato Tasso e Silvio
Antoniano”). According to Benedetti, the poet strove to preserve as much
personal and artistic liberty as possible in an increasingly restrictive cultural
environment.
Francesco Sberlati analyzes the relation beween political power and literary
production in the Seicento, focusing especially on the genre of political oratory.
He thereby lays bare the reality of court life in which the courtier who serves the
ruling elite through encomiastic writing has little scope to speak his mind (“‘Il
buon poeta è il più bugiardo’: adulazione e falsità nella letteratura barocca”).
Elissa Weaver’s essay is dedicated to the Venetian writer and Benedictine
nun Arcangela Tarabotti whose La semplicità ingannata (known in English as
Paternal Tyranny) condemned the unfair treatment of women and especially the
practice of forced monasticism, indicting fathers, the State, and the Church for
their complicity in denying women the exercise of their free will (“With
Truthful Tongue and Faithful Pen”: Arcangela Tarabotti Against Paternal
Tyranny”).
It may also happen that one’s protest against the abuses of the political elite,
while suppressed or ignored in one’s own milieu, will instead be positively
received and even used as propaganda by rival or enemy nations. Nicla Riverso
demonstrates how this occurred in the case of the polemical Catholic theologian
Paolo Sarpi, whose criticisms of papal politics offered Protestant writers in
England the means to support their arguments against the pope and the Church
of Rome (“Paolo Sarpi: The Hunted Friar and his Popularity in England”).
Marco Codebò’s “Potere, dissimulazione e verità nei Promessi sposi (1840)
e nella Storia della colonna infame” investigates the lack of truthfulness
prevalent among characters at all levels of society in Manzoni’s opus before
focusing on two important exceptions in which a powerless individual in both I
promessi sposi (1840) and La storia della colonna infame nevertheless finds the
courage to speak truth to power.
Valentina Nocentini examines the massive propaganda campaign preceding
and surrounding the 1911-1912 War in Libya, noting the complicity of the state
apparatus, the banking cartels, and the military-industrial complex, as well as
many Italian journalists and authors, before analyzing a short story by the little-
28 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
known writer Arturo Rossato whose puppeteer protagonist refuses to comply
with the war machine via an unforgettable gesture (“L’Italia della guerra di
Libia (1911-1912): un burattinaio contro il potere”).
Quinto Antonelli offers us a glimpse into the roughly four billion postcards
and letters penned by Italian peasant soldiers during World War I, underscoring
those that protested not only against the brutal conditions facing them, but also
against the dubious premises under which they were sent to the front to kill or be
killed (“Una rivolta morale: lettere e diari di soldati italiani dai fronti della
Grande Guerra [1915-1918]”).
Diana Garvin’s “Singing Truth to Power: Melodic Resistance and Bodily
Revolt in Italy’s Rice Fields” uses work songs and testimonials to investigate
how the mondine challenged and rebelled against the Fascist propaganda that
attempted to cast them as a symbol of productive womanhood as they worked in
the rice paddies.
Alan Perry traces Giovannino Guareschi’s resistance to Nazi brutality as a
prisoner of war, his opposition to the Communist party in the post-war period,
and his accusation against the Christian Democrat Alcide De Gasperi in a
consistent non-violent condemnation of the abuses of those who wielded power
(“Giovannino’s ‘Libertà’: Guareschi’s Personal Freedom in Opposition to
Power”).
In the volume’s final essay Maria Giménez Cavallo uses posthumanism,
feminism, and anarchism as a lens to show how the characters in La storia give
bodily form to Morante’s passionate denunciation of all institutionalized
systems of control (“Elsa Morante's La storia: A Posthumanist, Feminist,
Anarchist Response to Power”).
We chose to arrange the twenty selected essays in chronological order not
to impose a teleological vision, but to help contextualize occurrences in which
writers dared to confront power structures across the centuries, allowing
similarities and differences to emerge naturally across the peninsula’s shifting
social, economic, and political configurations. As Clifford Geertz remarked
when referring to the general concept of culture, “we need to look for systematic
relationships among diverse phenomena, not for substantive identities among
similar ones” (44). Readers will undoubtedly encounter both commonalities and
differences in the manner of speech employed, the nature of the truth
expounded, and the form of political power addressed and opposed among the
many thought-provoking contributions contained in this volume.
Columbia University
Università degli Studi di Siena
Introduction: Speaking Truth to Power from Medieval to Modern Italy 29
Works Cited Ariosto, Ludovico. Orlando furioso. Trans. Guido Waldman. New York: Oxford UP, 1983.
______. Orlando furioso. Ed. Lanfranco Caretti. 2 vols. 1966. Torino: Einaudi, 1992.
Boiardo, Matteo Maria. Orlando in Love. Trans. Charles S. Ross. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor
Press, 2004.
______. Orlando Innamorato. L’Inamoramento de Orlando. Ed. Andrea Canova. 2 vols.
Milano: BUR, 2011.
Bracciolini, Poggio. De infelicitate principum. Ed. Davide Canfora. Roma: Edizioni di
storia e letteratura, 1998.
______. Facezie. Ed. Marcello Ciccuto. Milano: Rizzoli, 1983.
Cantor, Paul. Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.
______. “The Poetics of Spontaneous Order: Austrian Economics and Literary Criticism.”
Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture. Ed. Paul Cantor
and Stephen Cox. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Intitute, 2009. 1-98.
______. The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture: Liberty vs. Authority in American Film and
TV. Lexington, KY: UP of Kentucky, 2012.
Cantor, Paul, and Stephen Cox, eds. Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous
Order in Culture. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Intitute, 2009.
Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. Trans. Charles S. Singleton. New York:
Doubleday, 1959.
______. Il libro del cortegiano. Ed. Walter Barberis. Torino: Einaudi, 1998.
Cavallo, Jo Ann. “Marco Polo on the Mongol State: Taxation, Predation, and
Monopolization.” Libertarian Papers 7.2 (2015): 157-68.
______. “On Political Power and Personal Liberty in The Prince and The Discourses.”
Machiavelli’s The Prince at 500. Ed. John McCormick. Social Research: An
International Quarterly 81.1 (Spring 2014): 107-32.
______. “Purgatory 17: On Revenge.” Purgatory: Lectura Dantis. Ed. A. Mandelbaum, A.
Oldcorn, C. Ross. Berkeley: U of California P, 2008. 178-90.
______. The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto, and Tasso: From Public Duty to Private
Pleasure. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2004.
______. The World beyond Europe in the Romance Epics of Boiardo and Ariosto.
Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2013.
Cultura e potere nel Rinascimento. Ed. Luisa Secchi Tarugi. Firenze: Cesati, 1999.
Dell’Anguillara, Giovanni Andrea. Le Metamorfosi d’Ovidio. Venezia: Giovanni Griffio,
1561.
Fernández-Morera, Darío. American Academia and the Survival of Marxist Ideas. Westport,
CT: Praeger, 1996.
Frajese, Vittorio. La censura in Italia: dall’Inquisizione alla Polizia. Roma: Laterza, 2014.
Garin, Eugenio. “Ritratto di Poggio.” Bracciolini. Facezie 5-24.
Geertz, Clifford. “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man.” The
Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. 33-54.
Gordon, David. “Arendt and the Austrians.” November 15, 2006. https://mises.org/
blog/arendt-and-austrians. Online.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis.” Journal of Libertarian
Studies 9.2 (fall 1990): 79-93. Reprinted in Maltsev, ed. Requiem for Marx 51-73.
Long, Roderick T. “Austro-Libertarian Themes in Early Confucianism.” Journal of
Libertarian Studies 17.3 (2003): 35-62.
Loscalzo, Donato. “L’infelicità dei principi e la felicità dei letterati in Poggio Bracciolini.”
30 Jo Ann Cavallo and Carlo Lottieri
Cultura e potere nel Rinascimento 379-88.
Lottieri, Carlo. Credere nello Stato? Teologia politica e dissimulazione da Filippo il Bello a
WikiLeaks. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 2011.
______. Denaro e comunità. Relazioni di mercato e ordinamenti giuridici nella società
liberale. Napoli: Guida, 2000.
______. Un’idea elvetica di libertà. Dopo lo Stato moderno. Brescia: La Scuola, 2016.
McMaken, Ryan. Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western
Genre. Creative Commons. 2012.
Maltsev, Yuri N., ed. Requiem for Marx. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993.
Martines, Lauro. Power and Imagination: City-States in Renaissance Italy. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.
Mendenhall, Allen. Literature and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014.
Nock, Albert Jay, and C. R. Wilson. Francis Rabelais, the Man and his Work. London:
Harper, 1929.
Ovidius Naso, Publius. Metamorphoses. Trans. David Raeburn. Intro. Denis Feeney. New
York: Penguin, 2004.
Rospocher, Massimo. “‘In vituperium status Veneti’: The Case of Niccolò Zoppino.” The
Italianist 34.3 (October 2014): 349-61.
Rothbard, Murray N. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969-1984. Auburn, AL: Mises
Institute, 2012.
______. The Rothbard Reader. Ed. Joseph T. Salerno and Matthew McCaffrey. Auburn,
AL: Mises Institute, 2016.
Salutati, Coluccio. De tyranno. Political Writings. Ed. Stefano U. Baldassarri. Trans. Rolf
Bagemihl. Latin and English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2014. 64-143.
Sozzi, Leonello. “Cultura e potere nel Rinascimento.” Cultura e potere nel Rinascimento 9-
18.
Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence. Originally
published 1955. http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html. Online.
Tarabotti, Arcangela. Inferno monacale. Ed. Francesca Medioli. Torino: Rosenberg &
Sellier, 1990.
______. Paternal Tyranny. Ed. Letizia Panizza. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004.